Doctoral thesis

6.2Methodology

Qualitative methodology was considered for this project, mainly for its ability to deeply explore the motivations of participants. In fact, the most prominent research projects about community broadcasting in Austria were indeed based on individual interviews and focus group sessions with participants (Purkarthofer et al 2008, Peissl et al 2010). However, quantitative methods were seen to be more effective and practical in accomplishing the aims of the project. Specifically, survey-based methodology was well-suited to overcome geographic and language barriers while effectively addressing the research questions in each country. An online questionnaire was selected for this project because it facilitates gathering a large amount of data that can then be accessed on a remote and convenient platform, with real time quality control (Kropivnik 2011). In addition, the online survey technology provided an effective tool requiring only limited resources – both human and financial.

The data collection placed great emphasis on the ability to generate responses to the online survey through email solicitation. First, introductory emails were sent to the managers of community broadcasting organizations, soliciting their cooperation to achieve the successful execution of the project and insure academic rigor of the results (Olafsson 2013). Essential questions and information, such as permission to conduct the web survey, permission to utilize internal organizational email lists for inviting participants, and any background information about the survey population were included in these initial contacts. After facilitation correspondence was completed, each community broadcasting organization was assigned a unique Uniform Resource Locator (URL) hyperlink to access the online survey, and was embedded in a standard email invitation sent to the contact person at each organization. This invitation then was adapted for internal use by the contact persons and forwarded to potential respondents on their internal email lists. Similarly-formatted reminder emails were also utilized to motivate participants and help increase response rates.

Because email was to be the primary tool for soliciting respondents for the survey, acquiring a representative sample population was expected to be a challenge. Those questions and challenges included the unknown number of participants not on the email lists, participants whose email addresses were no longer valid, and participants who simply would not respond. The “one person one survey” control option of the survey tool and the URL codes regulated access to the online survey, and helped to assure the integrity of the data. While by no means an exhaustive census of the total population of community broadcast participants, the email lists were, for the purposes of this research, considered the best option available.

Transparency was an important issue for the project, and providing a sense of security for participants was not only ethical, but has been shown to increase response rates (Babbie 2010, Bryman 2012). A commitment to full disclosure was implemented throughout the process that included the sources of theory and existing research, the roles of various contributors and partners, the ultimate use of the data, and the methodologies to collect it. To further provide a measure of transparency and boost the response rate of the survey, a project website was constructed (see Appendix 9.2.1), providing basic information about the project, advice on accessing the survey, and regular progress updates. In addition, a conference workshop to introduce the project to stakeholders was held in Salzburg in May 2014, which included a presentation by the researcher, and an open forum for feedback.

While it was understood that language represented a limiting factor to the accuracy and validity of the research, community broadcasting exists across boundaries of nations, cultures, and languages. Consequently, limitations of language were incorporated into the research expectations, and figured prominently in the actual execution of the project. The terms from policy documents used in the survey and the emails sent to organizations were translated by stakeholders and academic colleagues of the researcher. The proposed Czech policy document was written by the author originally in English, then the selected terms were translated into Czech for inclusion on the survey. The web survey was constructed first in English, then translated by colleagues into German, Serbo-Croatian, Turkish and Czech versions that were included in a selectable format for respondents, as was the project’s informational website.